Is it impossible for you to pass a box of doughnuts without eating a couple? At a buffet, do you find it easier to pile your plate than take a scoop and walk away? A recent report by the Rand Corporation and Tulane University suggests that most eating is triggered by irresistible environmental clues, which helps pack on the pounds. But does this really mean that we don’t have any control over our eating?

People are a lot like Pavlov’s dogs. Most of us are clueless about the factors that influence our eating. We also tend to underestimate how much we eat. We’re swayed by cues we aren’t even conscious of, and we eat automatically without even intending to. And once those patterns are established, it’s hard to break free of them.

Of course, a lot of human behavior is automatic. We tend to hang onto habits, even when we want to change. That includes eating habits. We may know that fast food is not particularly healthy, but if we’re fast food regulars, pulling up to a drive-through window becomes as natural as making coffee in the morning; it’s just part of our routine.

And once some stimulus triggers our eating, it’s tough to stop us from chowing down It doesn’t help that our bodies are programmed to overeat and to store calories in case of leaner times, a remnant of our hunter-gatherer days when food was scarce.

In many ways, these studies are similar to the Nobel Prize-winning work of Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov. More than 100 years ago, Pavlov trained dogs to associate an environmental stimulus with food. Eventually the dogs salivated whenever they were stimulated, regardless if food was present or if they were hungry.

One study published in the International Journal of Obesity indicates the effect of something as simple as a candy dish. When researchers at Cornell University put candy in a clear dish, people ate 71% more candy than they did when the candy was in an opaque dish and they couldn’t see it. In a similar experiment, people closest to food that was set out ate more than those who were physically farther away.

Even the size of bowls, plates and serving spoons affect how much people eat. Cornell researchers found that people don’t necessarily stop eating when they are full. When the scientists secretly refilled soup bowls as people were eating, those people ate 73% more soup than subjects whose soup levels went down as they ate.

According to the Rand/Tulane authors, if you accept the fact that people can’t control themselves around food, then the current approach to the obesity epidemic, which emphasizes nutrition education, won’t work. Although knowledge is important, it may make more sense to reshape our food environment.

Public Action to Curb Your Appetite

Our appetites are shaped not only by food but by advertising, food displays and ease. Many ads associate food with some desirable trait, like being trendy, smart or satisfied, rather than the health benefits or drawbacks. That creates a demand that is disconnected from hunger or nutritional needs.

Chain restaurants, for example, promote overeating through special promotions, huge portions and convenience. An astonishing variety of delicious, calorie-laden foods are an arm’s length away, pretty much wherever we are.

To tackle that overwhelming temptation, some experts are proposing several weight-management remedies. The remedies are unusual in that they assume the earlier messages about exercise and nutritional information have failed.

In a sense, the steps they propose mimic what health advocates have used to get people to stop smoking. The no-smoke backers started by putting the squeeze on public places − airplanes, restaurants, schools − and the trend has caught on, making it harder and harder for people to smoke.

One step the Rand/Tulane authors suggest is to make our food environment more transparent. For instance, they propose that the government rate restaurants according to the healthfulness of their food and their portion size. Like required safety inspections, the weight-control inspections would result in a grade that the food outlet would have to display. For example, a restaurant serving mostly super-sized portions of burgers and fries would receive a lower grade (like an F) than the eatery that serves salads, fruit and reasonably sized portions.

The same would apply to schools, worksites and communities. So although most schools have already restricted access to certain snack foods, ratings might force school cafeterias to serve something healthier than pizza and burgers. Perhaps student backpacks would be checked for unauthorized snacks, cracking down on any junk food black markets.

Some nutrition experts also suggest that stores offering pre-prepared foods serve portions consistent with weight-loss programs: complete meals of 400 to 500 calories that include low-calorie drinks, 2-3 ounces of meat and a cup of vegetables. (See related article: Size Does Matter: The Dummies’ Guide to Portion Control)

Suggestions aren’t limited to restaurants, either. Non-food spots such as hardware or book stores would stop selling chocolates and snacks. And, of course, the experts would be happy if vending machines were filled with apples and carrot sticks… or disappeared entirely.

Another recommendation: Control product placement by controlling shelf space. Most items considered “unhealthy” are displayed at the end of an aisle, in special floor displays, or close to the check-out counter. This is, of course, deliberate. Food marketers know that it’s difficult to resist temptation when we walk down the food aisle. They place certain foods in specific locations to trigger our food-buying impulse.

If stores were forced to change the placement of potato chips and other fatty snacks, our eating triggers might not be set off so easily.

Of course, some experts fear that governmental regulation of eating behaviors could go too far, encroaching on personal freedoms and our wallets − taxes would probably have to fund any public changes. And such regulations would raise thorny issues about where government restriction should end and individual responsibilities take over.

Despite a landscape full of temptation, environment can’t take all the blame for the obesity epidemic. At some point, the decision of what and how much to eat will always be ours.

The Cornell researchers suggest a middle ground. Instead of sweeping public change, they advocate making small ones: move fruits and vegetables to the front of the refrigerator, serve food on smaller plates, leave the casserole dish in the kitchen, and place only the salad on the dining room table.

By making at least some changes to an environment that tells us to eat, eat, eat, people will be better able to control their food consumption. The end result could be healthier Americans.

What’s Your Diet Downfall?

You already know if you're a junk food junkie or a sucker for bread and butter. You know if you've got a sweet tooth or a salty incisor. So what else is there to know about why your diet isn't working? Find out if you're unwittingly sabotaging your weight-loss plan and adding inches to your waistline with this diet quiz.

The information contained on www.lifescript.com(the "Site") is provided for informational purposes only and is not meant to substitute for advice from your doctor or healthcare professional. This information should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or disease, or prescribing any medication. Always seek the advice of a qualified healthcare professional regarding any medical condition. Information and statements provided by the site about dietary supplements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. LifeScript does not recommend or endorse any specific tests, physicians, third-party products, procedures, opinions, or other information mentioned on the Site. Reliance on any information provided by LifeScript is solely at your own risk.